Author
Topic: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids? (Read 23751 times)

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

So the 5diii would obviously produce cleaners high iso files, but as for focusing the f2.8 lens wins out over the f4 lens. If you're really interested in low light focusing the 6d is supposed to be even better than the 5diii with an extra senstive center af to -3ev.

I have both bodies. I don't have an issue shooting my 7D at 12,800 for sports and such if I have to but I sure would not do that for a wedding. 7D @ 1600 is comfortable and 3200 if I have to. The 7D will yield great even higher ISO shots but I call the sensor light hungry. It needs correct exposure so it is not very forgiving.

The 5D3 on the other hand will do better at higher ISO's and is a little more forgiving. If I were to shoot a lot of low light I would get a FF sensor. It is just basic megapixels, sensor size and math.

Here is my 7D at 12,800. NR using PS/LR - they are both the same. I really can't tell you about AF acquisition as I don't suffer with either.

in reallity i have found that the amount of noise reduction the 18MP crop sensor takes at iso 1600 is about equal to the amount iso 16,000 takes on the 5Dmk3

I understand that the 5D3's Digic 5+ is better at noise reduction than the 7D's Digic 4. But, isn't this only for the JPG's out of the camera? When working with RAW images from both camera's, it was my understanding that the noise levels are much closer giving the 5D3 a mere 1.3 stop advantage. Not true?

Sometime, yes. Obviously, I prefer faster when light and subject allow it, but 1/30 second works for many candid moments that don't involve physical activity -- as long as camera movement is controlled with IS or other means.

I like my 17-55, but the fact that DOF is slightly smaller with the 24-105 on a full frame body is one of the things that intrigues me about this lens -- it's wider, longer, cheaper, and real 'L' lens.

Zlatko

5D3 is a better low-light camera. But the 24-105/4 is not the lens for low-light candids — generally speaking. If low-light candids are a priority, get the 5D3 and buy a different lens. Pretty much any fast prime or f/2.8 zoom would be my preference for low-light candids.

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

Oh, I think that the response is quite clear: 5D3 with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS

I use this combination in dire situations almost from the day one ("day one" applies for both body and lens) and it never let me down. 5D3 has a vastly superior AF compared with 7D (high precision double cross AF points etc.) and significantly superior performance in low light.

Tamron has IS at f/2.8 which enables the double cross AF points which I mentioned above - a lens at f/4 doesn't exploit the AF's full potential, even if it has IS. Mind you, a low-light candid means that you must freeze also the possible motion not only the camera shake. Hence you need a faster aperture IOW a f/2.8 zoom or a prime - the latest Sigma 35 f/1.4 is the best if you ask me. Also, be sure to have the Canon's 50 f/1.8. It isn't the best but it has a good optical IQ and is very cheap and by a wide margin is the best price / performance on Earth. You will love it and you will learn a lot by using it. (Ok, if you have money go for Canon 50 f/1.4 or wait for a better 50 lens).

5D3 is a better low-light camera. But the 24-105/4 is not the lens for low-light candids — generally speaking. If low-light candids are a priority, get the 5D3 and buy a different lens. Pretty much any fast prime or f/2.8 zoom would be my preference for low-light candids.

I have both bodies. I don't have an issue shooting my 7D at 12,800 for sports and such if I have to but I sure would not do that for a wedding. 7D @ 1600 is comfortable and 3200 if I have to. The 7D will yield great even higher ISO shots but I call the sensor light hungry. It needs correct exposure so it is not very forgiving.

The 5D3 on the other hand will do better at higher ISO's and is a little more forgiving. If I were to shoot a lot of low light I would get a FF sensor. It is just basic megapixels, sensor size and math.

Here is my 7D at 12,800. NR using PS/LR - they are both the same. I really can't tell you about AF acquisition as I don't suffer with either.

looks pretty well, man. I have the 5D3 and I am a happy camper in that.

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

Oh, I think that the response is quite clear: 5D3 with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS

I use this combination in dire situations almost from the day one ("day one" applies for both body and lens) and it never let me down. 5D3 has a vastly superior AF compared with 7D (high precision double cross AF points etc.) and significantly superior performance in low light.

Tamron has IS at f/2.8 which enables the double cross AF points which I mentioned above - a lens at f/4 doesn't exploit the AF's full potential, even if it has IS. Mind you, a low-light candid means that you must freeze also the possible motion not only the camera shake. Hence you need a faster aperture IOW a f/2.8 zoom or a prime - the latest Sigma 35 f/1.4 is the best if you ask me. Also, be sure to have the Canon's 50 f/1.8. It isn't the best but it has a good optical IQ and is very cheap and by a wide margin is the best price / performance on Earth. You will love it and you will learn a lot by using it. (Ok, if you have money go for Canon 50 f/1.4 or wait for a better 50 lens).

in reallity i have found that the amount of noise reduction the 18MP crop sensor takes at iso 1600 is about equal to the amount iso 16,000 takes on the 5Dmk3

I understand that the 5D3's Digic 5+ is better at noise reduction than the 7D's Digic 4. But, isn't this only for the JPG's out of the camera? When working with RAW images from both camera's, it was my understanding that the noise levels are much closer giving the 5D3 a mere 1.3 stop advantage. Not true?

Sometime, yes. Obviously, I prefer faster when light and subject allow it, but 1/30 second works for many candid moments that don't involve physical activity -- as long as camera movement is controlled with IS or other means.

I like my 17-55, but the fact that DOF is slightly smaller with the 24-105 on a full frame body is one of the things that intrigues me about this lens -- it's wider, longer, cheaper, and real 'L' lens.

no i'm talk editing raw files in LR i have all that in camera stuff turned off

ie using a NR setting of say 60 in LR on a 1600 file from the crop is pretty similar to the same NR applied to 16,000 iso on the 5dmk3

@wickidwombat: so you're talking about 3.5 stops in RAW from crop. That comes close. Coming from a 30D 1600 was highest I would dare to go in nightphotography (knowing there's some PP waiting). With the 5D3 now I go as high as 25.600 or 51200 without hesitation. Depending on your situation, even 51k without NR look quite usable

5DIII + 24-105/4L will deliver noticeably better low-light/high ISO IQ than 7D + 17-55/2.8. For low light candids, I also agree that an f/2.8 or faster lens is the way to go.

Personally, I prefer not to depend on IS in that situation - even if the camera is stable at 1/30 s (IS or tripod), subject motion is a problem, and especially in candids where subjects aren't 'holding still' for the camera (even in posed shots, I prefer at least 1/60 s). On my 1D X, I use a minimum 1/125 s shutter for shooting people - and I let the ISO run up to 12800 with no worries.

which ever body you choose is finemy concern would be shooting with the 24-105 other than in RAW.this lens NEEDS massive lens correction. its sharp... but the distortion is alarming. DPP, PS raw process.. or what ever.. but switch on that correction...